Kepler Nvidia GeForce GTX 780

[Mungri]

Sitting on your product only reduces its useable marketable lifespan. IF you have a complete, marketable, and competative product then it should be on the market. Otherwise its suicide.

Its not ready yet though? Nvidias roadmap shows that the full GK110 wont be ready until early 2013. It would be highly unpractical for them to rush out a crippled 'GTX 480' version right now while the GK104 is performing and competing brilliantly against the 7970.

They would undercut their own product, the GTX 680. People wouldnt be rushing out to buy GK104 at £400 if a crippled GK110 is available at £500 and better. This way they sell their more profitable chip first at a much higher price point than it was designed for, and reserve their high end GK110 'until its ready'.

They arent 'holding anything back because its too good', they just want to release the full beast when its ready rather than release its crippled inefficient sibling, which would only reduce sales of the significantly more profitable GK104.

[Rollo]

As was already said. You do not hold back an ASIC effectively pushing back future products because "it is too good." That is how you get humiliated.
The samething with R&D. You simply do not do that.

As far as your whole "smaller chip" argument, there is definitely something larger coming and brings me back to the comment I made to you recently, Nvidia isn't going to turn it's back on GPGPU after using so many resources to secure the market.


They already filled some of them with Fermi...


No it's not necessary in gaming cards but making two different architectures can be tough. Rather than just scaling down and seeing how your design/architecture works with the process you get to play with a bunch of unknowns.

In certainly is nice to have a gaming orientated GPU out there because it is so efficient but on the flip side it isn't so efficient in terms of time to market for an entire lineup or ease of design/manufacturing.

???

Do you work for ATi or NVIDIA? You seem to have some pretty decided opinions of what businesses like this "do" and "don't do". I'm just speculating on how it could be benficial to hold back, if you're actually in the business, I'll defer to your greater knowledge. (obviously you'd have a greater understanding than me, and I would not want to mislead, even speculating)

[NEOAethyr]

I'm looking forward to the 660's.
768 shaders, 64 texture unit's, 192bit mem ddr5.
Looks very good except for the 192bit part, but if you overclock it to the same lv as the 680, I think it would still be 2x faster in mem then the 460 for example.

Think of it this way, just an example.
2x 660's, 384bit mem, same amount of shaders as the 680.
1x 680, likely the same cost as the above 2 cards together, but less mem bandwith in total.

Being that the 680 uses ruffly around 175w, imagine that cut in half.
The 660 is probably gonna be rated around 90w.

With a 660, I'm 'guessing', my pc would run ruffly around 200w on load, that's good stuff.
The tv in the living room uses more power then my entire system would (including monitor) if I had a 660 .

I very much like the direction nvidia is going with it's lower power cards as the mainstream.
I don't like how they are gimping out a bit on some things like the mem bandwith.

Edit:
Nvidia only makes 1-2 diff core's per gen.
Say a 685 or 690 comes out and it's single core, how much you wanna bet it's really the exact same thing as a 680 core....
Same goes for the 660's, probably really just a 680 with some chunks of it disabled.
Though I'm hoping this won't be the case, I'm actually hoping for nvidia to cut the core in half physically.

As for the quadro's, they are most definitely the same exact cores.
Always has been.
If something called gpgpu (whatever that is...) is gone, it's either not gone at all but disabled, or it's really gone for good and it's not coming back.

[UrbanSmooth]

Give me 4GB+ GTX 780s or give me DEATH!!

[NEOAethyr]

Same here, thinking about the 4gig ver's.
But I would really like a 660 with 4 gigs, the performance/wattage would be unmatched.
Probably not no good for 2-4x displays but good enough for a single display, 3d wise.

Now that i think about it, 192bit...
What was it, 32bit or 16bit per ram chip?
I don't think..., if the 660 is truly 192bit, then it's not gonna come with 2gigs.
It might be 1.5 and 3gig configs.
3 gig would be ok for me.

[Unoid]

Ruffly? Are you talking about Ruffles potatoe chips :P

I'm looking forward to the 660's.
768 shaders, 64 texture unit's, 192bit mem ddr5.
Looks very good except for the 192bit part, but if you overclock it to the same lv as the 680, I think it would still be 2x faster in mem then the 460 for example.

Think of it this way, just an example.
2x 660's, 384bit mem, same amount of shaders as the 680.
1x 680, likely the same cost as the above 2 cards together, but less mem bandwith in total.

Being that the 680 uses ruffly around 175w, imagine that cut in half.
The 660 is probably gonna be rated around 90w.

With a 660, I'm 'guessing', my pc would run ruffly around 200w on load, that's good stuff.
The tv in the living room uses more power then my entire system would (including monitor) if I had a 660 .

I very much like the direction nvidia is going with it's lower power cards as the mainstream.
I don't like how they are gimping out a bit on some things like the mem bandwith.

Edit:
Nvidia only makes 1-2 diff core's per gen.
Say a 685 or 690 comes out and it's single core, how much you wanna bet it's really the exact same thing as a 680 core....
Same goes for the 660's, probably really just a 680 with some chunks of it disabled.
Though I'm hoping this won't be the case, I'm actually hoping for nvidia to cut the core in half physically.

As for the quadro's, they are most definitely the same exact cores.
Always has been.
If something called gpgpu (whatever that is...) is gone, it's either not gone at all but disabled, or it's really gone for good and it's not coming back.

[NEOAethyr]

Ruffly? Are you talking about Ruffles potatoe chips :P

Probably, never paid attention to it .

[PatRaceTin]

Waiting for GTX 685

[aussie-revhead]

Waiting for the mythical Big Kepler .....

[N19h7m4r3]

Waiting for the mythical Big Kepler .....

After that:

Waiting for Maxwell...

Then

Waiting for Big Maxwell...

It's a never ending cycle, at some point you just have to buy what you need.

[aussie-revhead]

I dont need any lol I like benching. I bought a 680 on release, blew away all my PB's and sold it again before early pricing dropped, thats why Im waiting for the next big gun.

[dartaz]

Same here, thinking about the 4gig ver's.
But I would really like a 660 with 4 gigs, the performance/wattage would be unmatched.
Probably not no good for 2-4x displays but good enough for a single display, 3d wise.
.

660 with 4GB ?! It is completely pointless because once a game use that much memory it would be completely unplayable anyway. Even GTX 680 probably can't take the advantage of 4GB ram

I'm not sure why people are so interested in video ram size these days

[Bun-Bun]

People have always been interested in video ram size. It's been one of the main marketing numbers.

Don't know how many times I've shaken my head when someone chose a card with more vram that was actually slower than the card i was trying to sell them for less money which was faster.

[Pantsu]

Size matters. If not in practice, at least in people's minds, and marketing will do its best to promote that idea.

[OutSider]

I know what you mean

[Kristoferr]

Some live their whole life in denial.
Some may start to belive.
Some have known in all their time, that size indeed does matter.

[JaD]

But I would really like a 660 with 4 gigs, the performance/wattage would be unmatched.

Seriously, all this bullcrap about VGA memory is starting to get annoying.

[El Mano]

Some live their whole life in denial.
Some may start to belive.
Some have known in all their time, that size indeed does matter.

Are we still talking about GPU's and vram?

[UrbanSmooth]

Seriously, all this bullcrap about VGA memory is starting to get annoying.

You must be a single display user. Of course you don't care, lol. You don't need anything more than 1-2GB.

Are we still talking about GPU's and vram?

You see, people that proudly sport multi-display setups (IE, REAL situations such as THREE or MORE displays, YES, I'M BRAGGING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), are the ones that NEED and are interested in the extra VRAM.

Ok. You folks have a nice day.

[STEvil]

Or single display at 2560x1080/1440/1600.. or you know, games that might in the future utilize more gpu memory.

Its a null argument really. You buy for your situation.

[JaD]

You must be a single display user. Of course you don't care, lol. You don't need anything more than 1-2GB.

lololol. Or maybe I'm someone who realizes how evident it is that a 660 would run out of GPU power before ever being able to fill 4Gb of memory.
In any case WE DON'T CARE if you think you need more vram. Get a custom card with twice the ram, they always have been and always will be around. It's your money. Just f'ing stop complaining about vram on the forums all the f'ing time.

And there's really nothing to brag about 3 sh*tty TN screens of the lowest quality.

[GoldenTiger]

lololol. Or maybe I'm someone who realizes how evident it is that a 660 would run out of GPU power before ever being able to fill 4Gb of memory.
In any case WE DON'T CARE if you think you need more vram. Get a custom card with twice the ram, they always have been and always will be around. It's your money. Just f'ing stop complaining about vram on the forums all the f'ing time.

And there's really nothing to brag about 3 sh*tty TN screens of the lowest quality.

This. I love my 2560x1600 S-IPS 30" LCD, though, and I too realize that I won't need more than 2GB while the 680 GPU is still relevant.

[tajoh111]

I think 2gb is completely fine as long as they make 4gb for the people that want them. It allows alot of people to save 50 dollars which the savings will probably be. I think 4gb is the absolute most, people will need unless they run 6 screens and is a sweet spot number. 6gb of vram I see companies charging 100+ dollars instead of 50 because it is significantly more memory and for the most part impractical. What i mean by impractical is there are no situation that really need it, and as a result, card makers don't need to make it. If they do, it will be entirely for the epeen crowd who will pay anything for a card and think bigger is better. Because of this, most card makers don't make such a configuration and when they do, it's only one company doing it and they charge more as a result. Considering how efficient the gtx 680 is with its vram, or the architecture in general, I don't see very many scenarios where 4gb+ is used and for most situations 2gb will be enough.

Still wouldn't hurt to have a 512bit bus. I think more buswidth will be more beneficial towards performance than more vram for the gtx 780.

[N19h7m4r3]

This. I love my 2560x1600 S-IPS 30" LCD, though, and I too realize that I won't need more than 2GB while the 680 GPU is still relevant.

That's how I feel aswell with my 2560x1440 IPS 27" monitor. By the time the RAM is an issue the card is likely going to need to be replaced anyway.

Sure if the GTX 680 4GB is at most €50 more with some added clocks ( like the eVGA 680 FTW ) I might pick it up.

[Kristoferr]

Theres always two sides in each story. I see people complaining and making fun of cards having a lot of memory and others to complain cards not having enough. Forums are for discussion, but most of the posts are Nvidia users claiming about how 1 and/or 2Gigs is enough and AMD users about how it isnt.
Each of its own and lets stop it here OK?
I already posted few pictures and links how AMD card benefits from additonal memory if you have high resolutions and details -and also how GTX 680 could benefit from 4Gigs as well on same situations. It should be clear as a whistle now for everyone. So i dont see the point of continuing storming eachother.